johnny, on Oct 17 2005, 06:56 AM, said:
Which means, quite simply "the being-baptized-ones on behalf of those dead ones." The arms-length disassociation you want to load into that "they" is simply not there.
The Bible does not support that Paul practiced baptism for the dead.
The Bible also does not support the claim that Paul attacked or disapproved of the practice, either. Rather, he cites it as evidence of the resurrection of the dead. How could that be, if it were anything other than an authoritative practice?
To the Church of Jesus Christ, those baptized into other churches are in exactly the same situation as the disciples Paul found in Ephesus, who had been baptized without the proper authority. Paul didn't say "oh, well that's okay then," he baptized them again. (See Acts 19:1-5.)
Proper authority is not needed for baptism ... since this off-topic open another thread and I will be glad to discuss it.
On the contrary, the question of validity of a baptism is certainly relevant to the point at issue. The "intent" of the early saints was to confer a valid baptism upon those who had not received one. Our "intent" is the same. Your bald assertion does not negate the scriptural record, which unequivocally shows that those who had received a non-valid baptism needed a valid one. And the sticking point certainly seems to have been the authority by which the original baptisms were administered.
All this talk about "intent" might be interesting to canon lawyers and such, but the obedient of God have only concerned themselves with two questions: (1) what does God want us to do, and (2) who is authorised to do these things?
(1) Do you think God want us to baptize the dead?
But I know, without a doubt, that God does indeed want us to baptize on behalf of
the dead. (That's what that "huper" means.)
Death is the end of man's earthly pilgrimage, of the time of grace and mercy which God offers him so as to work out his earthly life in keeping with the divine plan, and to decide his ultimate destiny.
And if, through no fault of his own, a man is unable to fulfill some necessary requirement in his lifetime, is the grace of God then at an end for him?
(2)The Catholic Church obviously is authorized to baptize ... open another thread and let's talk.
That's certainly not obvious to me
. But whether it is or not, the fact remains that, since baptizing those who had not been validly baptized is the biblical practice, if baptism for the dead is also valid, then performing baptisms on behalf of the dead who had received an invalid baptism in life is exactly the same as performing baptisms on behalf of the dead who had received no
baptism in life.
(1) Honest. (2) Well-informed. (3) Denying that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has been a Christian institution without interruption from the beginning of its history.
A critic may choose any two of the above three. Choose wisely.